Thursday, December 31, 2015

Thanks to Al Gore's 2006 climate change documentary (?), 'An Inconvenient Truth', many now believe the polar bear is on the brink of extinction because of the lack of sea ice. Al's movie portrayed them flailing around in the water, exhausted, and ultimately dying in a failed attempt to find any ice to rest upon. Thus, the distressed polar bear had become the unofficial "face" of climate change and global warming.

Let me a assure you however, the polar bear is doing just fine. A new study released by the Norwegian Polar Institute finds that the population of polar bears has increased 30% in the 11 years since 2004. And, the study concludes that they all appear to be in excellent health with some even described as "fat as pigs". Ah yes. Life is good in polar bear land; especially since hunting them down legally has been outlawed for the last 40 years.

To me, the phrase "fat as pigs" doesn't describe an animal that is fighting for its life, as Al Gore would have us believe. Instead, it implies a pretty laid-back lifestyle with plenty of food. A lot like someone's portly old uncle glued to his couch; chugging beer; and, having pizza every day. Maybe not a healthy lifestyle, but certainly one not lacking in rest and food.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

When Martin O'Malley announced his candidacy, he took aim at American CEO's.

First he said:

"I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street: The presidency is not a
crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families."

The term "bullies of Wall Street" certainly implies some deep seated hatred of these companies and their execs.

Also, he said this:

"Tell me how it is that not a single Wall Street CEO was convicted of a crime related to the 2008 economic meltdown."

Well, maybe because the meltdown was more about legislative and political efforts and the position that Wall Street and the Banks were put into in order to push for low income and poor home ownership.

Later, O'Malley made the comment that he is happy to be 'the last person' Wall Street CEOs want running in 2016. Which, is not even a veiled threat that, if elected, he would go after America's engine of economic growth.

Then, there's Bernie Sanders.

Early on in his campaign, he said he would be fine with a 90% tax on the wealthy. He also took aim at 18 CEO's that he claimed took billions in bailouts, outsourced jobs, and dodged taxes. One of those was Jeffery Immelt of GE who sits on President Obama's Economic Council.

Rounding out the attack on CEO hatred, there's Hillary Clinton.

In the first month of her campaign, she claimed the average CEO was payed 400 times that of an average worker, and as such, if she was elected, she would do something about that. However, this statistic only narrowly applies to 350 of the nearly 1/4 million CEO's in the country. The median salary for those top-paid CEO's is $15.1 million while the median salary for most is a little over $173,000. Obviously, she wants to pit the workers against the CEO's in her effort to get elected.

What all of this shows is that the Democratic party and its presidential candidates have become more and more anti-wealth and anti-business socialists. This at a time when most of Europe has figured out that socialism doesn't work and are now trying to throw that form of politics and economics overboard.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

In most every big city in America, murders and violent crime surged in 2015. Up between 11% and 16%; depending on the study you look at.

Something called the "Ferguson Effect" is being blamed for it. Essentially, the "Ferguson Effect" has chilled active policing in our major cities for fear that a cop, any cop, will find themselves in court, or perhaps in prison for murder, should something go wrong during an altercation that may ends in the death of a suspected criminal. Thus, the crooks have gotten the streets back.

For Chicago, the number of murders in 2015 is projected to hit 505; up more than 11% from the 2013 and 2014 counts of 450 and 454, respectively. However, on a positive side, it won't see the highly publicized number of 514 murders that was seen in 2012.

Also, for Chicago, 2015 was also the year when the video of Laquan McDonald being shot to death by a cop was released to the world press. Now, some people are calling for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign. On top of that, GQ Magazine has named Rahm to its worst people's list of 2015.

In my opinion, there is a bigger issue regarding the Chicago Police and Mayor Emanuel that is being ignored amid the charged environment of the Laquan video. That issue is the fact that so few murders are actually solved and brought to justice in that City. In 2012 -- a year that saw the recent record of 514 murders -- only 26% were solved. Another report by the Chicago Sun Times found that, since 1990, the solved murder rate has fallen from 70% to below 30%.

Essentially, Rahm Emanuel has neutered the Police's investigative capabilities in an effort to solve the City's budget problems. The Sun-Times found that the "number of Chicago Police detectives, evidence technicians, and forensic
investigators has declined by at least 19 percent since Emanuel
took office."

If Rahm does resign, it should be over his weakening of the Police Department; leaving the City exposed, justice not being served, and criminals left on the streets to commit even more crime. The 2015 stats may only be the tip of the iceberg, created by an overworked police investigative team which will continue to create an exponential rise in crime in the years to come.

Monday, December 28, 2015

First it was her claim that an anti-Mohammed video was responsible for the death of our Ambassador and others in a terrorist attack on Benghazi. A lie that was debunked by her own email to Chelsea saying otherwise, and a separate email that she had sent to the Egyptian Prime Minister the following day, in which she explained that it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video.

Now, the latest "video" lie comes from the last Democratic debate where she said this:

"He [Trump] is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing
videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit
more radical jihadists."

Just like Benghazi, there is zero truth in this. There are no such videos nor any facts supporting the claim, and Hillary's team can't produce a video either. PolitiFact gives this one a big, wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap "False".

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Climate change and global warming alarmists tell us that man-caused global warming is a real and settled science. They also tell us that to deny it is tantamount to not believing in science at all. Thus, when a scientist tells us something, we should embrace it as fact.

My problem, is that all too often, scientific studies contradict each other; leaving the person reading them with a severe headache. Perfect examples of this were two recent stories, just a month apart from each other, regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

The first appeared online at EcoWatch.com on November 9th of this year titled: "Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High".

Slightly less than a month later, the U.K. Independent published an online article with this title: "Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row".

So, who to believe? Both headlines are based on "true" scientific studies and supposed measurements. If "the" science is settled, why two divergent results? It is no wonder that sane people find climate change alarmism extremely difficult to take seriously. Which story will be in your Global Warming/Climate Change Internet bookmark? My guess is that you are a "believer" and on the political left, the first story is the most believable as noted by this graphic from Pew Research:

Click on Image to Enlarge

Tell me that climate change alarmism isn't more politics and less science!

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

I'm of the belief that every time Obama says something, the opposite is true. If he says you can keep your doctor, you can't. ISIS is a JayVee team? Not hardly. These are only two examples of countless failed assertions made by this President.

In January 2015, Obama said "Don't buy that gas guzzler, fuel prices are gonna go up." True to form, oil and subsequently gasoline prices, have fallen significantly. At the time Obama said that, West Texas oil (WTI) was around $59/barrel. As of this writing, it now sits at $36.32/barrel, and many say it could go as low as $20/barrel. If that should happen, the national average for gasoline would be about $1.34 a gallon. Substantially lower than the $1.61/gallon when Obama took office. Currently, the national average is slightly above $2/gallon according to the American Automobile Association (triple "A").

The reason that the President said "Don't buy that gas guzzler" is because he knew what would happen with low gasoline prices. In general, people would stop buying fuel efficient and expensive hybrids and electric cars. According to a recent story in Scientific American, Ford's biggest gas guzzlers, the brawny and high performance Mustang and the massive Lincoln Navigator, had a 70% increase in sales over last year. The increase in sales of low-mpg and large SUV's and trucks are showing across the board sales increases among all manufactures. At the same time, sales of electrics and hybrids have suffered.

I believe that falling oil prices drove President Obama's recent decision to not approve the Keystone XL pipeline project. But, another decision on his part, will only make oil even cheaper. That decision was to, again, allow Iran to sell its oil on the world market. Thus, the current glut that is driving oil prices down, will only become a bigger problem when Iran's oil hits the markets. For a President who wants his legacy to be about being green and lowering CO2 emissions from automobiles, cheap gas is his worst nightmare.

Monday, December 21, 2015

In a recent Washington Post article, Democrat and Obama Economist, Jared Bernstein, along with another lesser known writer said, simply from its title "Yet another inconvenient truth for its opponents: Obamacare is not ‘killing jobs’". Of course, in the article, they point to facts that support their claim.

Others have pointed out that jobless claims this year have been at 42-year lows despite this being the same year that the employee mandate kicked in. So, how can it be said that ObamaCare is costing jobs?

The problem is, that jobs are being lost in a way that is not obvious from the employment reports. As of 2014, 34% of the workforce, or 53 million employees, are contracted labor; up from just 7% of the workforce or 10 million workers in 2005. And, up 11 million workers or almost 25% in just one year, from 42 million in 2013. The real inconvenient truth is that employees are being converted to contractors as employers maneuver to avoid federal and state mandates like matching FICA payments, salaried overtime requirements, and, oh yes, Obamacare.

Also, be aware that when an independent contractor (freelancer) is laid off, he/she is not eligible for unemployment insurance. Additionally, 4% of our workforce are involuntarily working part-time. That's almost 50% higher than the traditional 2.7%. This despite the supposed lowering of the unemployment rate to 5%. The only rational explanation for this is that employers are avoiding the 50 full time employees rule of ObamaCare by converting full time jobs to part time.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Once again, we have another Employment Report, and once again, the unemployment rate gets a boost from people who have left, or are leaving the the workforce. The lowest in nearly 4 decades. Some would argue that if the labor participation rate was where it was at pre-recession, the actual unemployment rate would be over 10% and not at the 5% we see today.

Last March, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee blamed the "Obama economy" for the decline in labor participation. However, a writer for FactCheck.org wrote this while arguing against that criticism of the President.

"economists say most of the decline, which has been happening for more
than a decade, is due to demographics, including the trend of baby
boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to no longer work."

The problem with the retiring baby boomer argument, is that its just flat wrong. Once a year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issues a report on labor participation rates. The latest for 2014 shows this:

Simply, the labor participation rates for older Americans are rising; indicating a willingness to work past the early retirement age of 55 years or the normal retirement age of 65 years. The real losses have been for those of the working ages 16 to 24 and 25 to 54; with the 16 to 24 year olds being hardest hit.

Enough with the lame baby boomer argument for losses in the labor participation rate.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

It seems like every time a new Iowa poll comes out, the media begins buzzing about whoever is leading. But, history tells us that Iowa is neither a good prognosticator of who gets the nomination for either party, nor a good predictor of the ultimate President. Cases, in point are as follows, with 40 years of data from Wikipedia.Picking the Party's Nominee

For the Democrats, only one person has been picked to become the party's nominee, and then gone on to be President. That was Barack Obama in 2008. Similarly, for the Republicans, only George W. Bush accomplished the same feat in 2000. This fact should scare Hillary Clinton to death, if she, as it almost seems inevitable, wins Iowa. It should also scare whoever wins on the Republican side. Clearly, the odds are against the Iowa victor becoming President.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the only two sitting Presidents who won Iowa and lost the General Election were Jimmy Carter for the Democrats in 1980 and George H.W. Bush for the Republicans in 1992.

Clearly, the political junkies will find Iowa an adrenaline rush, but in reality, it is no big deal. I mean, no offense to the people of Iowa, but being first may simply mean that people aren't really paying attention yet.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on November 13th, President Obama said this about ISIS (the Islamic State):

"I don't think they're gaining strength. What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them."

Now, less than 4 weeks later, on December 10th, the New York Times has reported the following:

"As American intelligence agencies grapple with theexpansion of the
Islamic State beyond its headquarters in Syria, the Pentagon has
proposed a new plan to the White House to build up a string of military
bases in Africa, Southwest Asia and the Middle East."

Once again, Obama is wrong about ISIS. As wrong as when he called them a JayVee team for which Politifact gave him a completely "false" score. As I have often said before in this blog. It's simple. When Obama says something, the opposite is the truth.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Forty-seven years ago, in 1968, Chicago was the site of a major race riot sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King. Along with Washington D.C., it helped lead the way to other rioting across the country. 49 years before that, in 1919, another series of riots occurred throughout the U.S., with Chicago, again, being the worst.

Thus far, the protests in Chicago regarding the shooting death of Laquan McDonald have been fairly peaceful. But, as we all know, peace can turn to violence in seconds. Also understand, that the City's Black Lives Matter people are not merely protesting the McDonald shooting. They are protesting what they believe to be a pattern of the Chicago police unjustifiably killing blacks for years.

My concern, is that Chicago race riots tend to be contagious and can quickly spread throughout the nation. Also, should rioting happen, it would confirm a near 50-year recurrence in that city. Hopefully nothing will happen, but if Mayor Emmanuel doesn't resign, it just might.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Once again, there was another mass shooting. This time in San Bernadino. Once again, the Democrats are trotting out a symphony of calls for new, common-sense gun control laws. President Obama, only a day after the San Bernadino slaughter, vowed to close the Gun Show Loophole using an executive order. Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton said, that if she was President, she would use an executive order to not only close the Gun Show Loophole, but also, ban Internet sales and Straw Purchases that evade background checks.

First of all, understand that there is no such thing as a Gun Show Loophole.

Under existing federal laws -- the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 -- anyone selling more than 4 guns a year, and if those guns haven't been made earlier than 1944, and therefore not considered antique, are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and initiate an instant bckground check with a 5-day waiting period on every gun they sell. Thus, there are very few sellers of guns at Gun Shows who will be willing to pay upfront promotional fees to set up a table to only sell 4 or fewer guns. The only ones that do are typically selling antiques that don't require background checks and don't require an FFL.

The hidden agenda of the political left is to cite the supposed Gun Show Loophole as a means to force background checks on all firearm transactions; even if you are selling a hunting rifle to your brother-in-law. Something that would almost surely be impossible to enforce and would require millions of man hours to do so. Further, it would do nearly nothing to reduce gun violence and gun-related crime in this country. According to a 2013 report (page 13) from the Bureau of Justice, a survey of 18,000 state and federal prisoners revealed that only 8-tenths of a single percent of them that used guns at the time of their arrests, had purchased those guns at a gun show. Also, there was no indication in that report as to whether or not they were purchased without any federally mandated background check.

Then, there's the "Internet" straw man argument. Just like the Gun Show sellers, Internet sellers must also have an FFL if they plan to sell more than 4 guns a year. But, there's an additional federal law that says no guns can be sent directly to someone in the mail or via another conveyance such as UPS. Instead, a firearm must be sent first to an FFL dealer, who in turn will process a required background check and hold the gun for the mandated 5-day waiting period.

Lastly, there is the "Straw Purchase" argument. A straw purchase is when someone buys a gun for someone else. Specifically, if they buy a gun for someone who wouldn't pass a background check. However, this is already covered by existing laws. It is a federal crime to purchase a gun for someone that is a known felon; or who knowingly intends to use it in the commission of a crime; or has a mental illness. Again, the issue here is enforcement. There is always going to be the person who buys a gun for a felon, or a terrorist, who will grind off the firearm's serial number and make it untraceable to the original owner. In actuality, millions of Americans are, in a way, guilty of straw purchases. Someone who buys a firearm for the home, that is accessible to others has engaged in a straw purchase. Buying a gun and giving it to a friend or family member who is being stalked or threatened would be considered a crime under what the Democrats would consider a straw purchases. Buying a gun as a gift also, technically, is a straw purchase.

Essentially, the Gun Show Loophole, Internet Sales, and Straw Purchases are all false arguments that will do very little to stop mass shootings and murders throughout the country. We already have enough laws to cover any of these scenarios. Maybe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- both lawyers -- and other Democrats should spend more time getting acquainted with the existing laws before calling for new ones that just copy the old.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

In 2008, while running for the presidency, the then-Senator Barack Obama said his healthcare reform plan would save the average family $2,500 a year. Then, in December of 2009, after emerging from a meeting with the Senate Democrats on the progress of his health plan, he said this: "We [he and the Senate Democrats] agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care."

Over the years since making those statements, there was never any proof that his claims of savings were simply lies in order to sell his takeover of healthcare in this country. That is, until last week. That's when the Obama Administration reported that, in 2014 and the first year of the individual mandate, healthcare expenses had risen the most, percentage-wise, since Obama took office. But, putting percentages aside, the dollar amount increase in 2014 was the largest single-year increase in 54 years; rising $151.4 billion dollars from $2.879.9 trillion in 2013 to $3.031.3 trillion in 2014. That also reflects a half-trillion dollar increase in this nation's healthcare costs since Obama took office.

To put that $151 billion increase into perspective, you need to understand that this amount equals $526 dollars for every one of the 287 million men, women, and children who were insured in 2014 (the population of 320 million people less the 33 million who were still uninsured in that year). Thus, an average family of four saw their expenses for healthcare rise by $2,100. Almost the complete opposite of the $2,500 a year drop that Obama promised.

The string of broken promises associated with ObamaCare just keeps getting longer and deeper. In essence, ObamaCare is imploding on itself and making healthcare access more limited, and the costs substantially higher. This thing needs to be repealed.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

When a President of the United States takes to the Oval Office to address the nation following a major event, Americans expect that something new and significant will be conveyed. They expect a plan of action and reassurance. That was the case for President Kennedy's address during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or when George H. W. Bush announced the start of the first Gulf War, or when Reagan addressed America following the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, and surely when George W. Bush addressed the nation following 9/11.

The setting is intentionally formal. The President is seated at his work desk; with flags flanking him on both sides. Obama's Sunday night address was indeed in the oval office. However, instead of at the desk he stood in front of a podium, awkwardly placed in front of the desk; giving the appearance of just another press conference, or one of his speeches on the road. What's worse, he conveyed nothing new about the terrorist attack in San Bernadino. Personally, I think he chose the podium over the desk because he really didn't have anything new or important to say, No real plan of action. No reassurances. He simply, once again, blamed inaction on gun control; even though none of the proposed gun control measures would have prevented San Bernadino. Essentially, it was a stay the course speech on what he, in his own mind, thinks is working to defeat ISIS and terrorism.

To me and others, his speech merely reinforced the belief that this President is simply marking time until he can get out of office and hand the problem over to his successor. In the meantime, there may be more San Bernadino's in our future due to his inaction.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Once, again, we had another mass killing. This time at a Colorado Planned Parenthood facility. The killer is obviously mentally ill and a loner. While the Democrats and President Obama want to focus on gun control as a means to stop these events, Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, is the only adult in the room to call for stronger mental health laws and reporting.

In 2014, the Washington Post published this graphic showing the mental status of mass killers since 1984:

With only 26% of the above labelled "With No Mental Health Issue", it is obvious that the majority of murders were committed by people with mental problems (areas in black and possibly grey). For example, all 6 of the mass killing events in 1999 were committed by mentally ill people. The same was true in 2012. Of course, if the "Unclear" group was assumed to possibly have some mental illness (otherwise, they would be in blue), then the vast majority were mentally ill in some way. This proves that Paul Ryan is on to something by calling for better mental health laws in this country, in order to control their access to guns.

The problem with mentally ill people being on the streets actually goes back to 1963 when then-President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act. Under that law, people would no longer be institutionalized against their will unless they were either found to be a threat to themselves or others, or if they themselves, requested to be institutionalized. Thus, the practice of scooping people off the streets was stopped and nearly 90% of beds at state mental hospitals were emptied. This is also why so many of the homeless, that walk our streets, appear to have mental problems. It's no coincidence that the enactment of that law has resulted in a rise of mass killings into the 1970's and beyond. Note these statistics that show the number of these events by decade since the 1900's from the "History of Mass Shootings" (linked in "References" below).

Thus, there is a clear correlation between the passage and implementation of the Community Mental Health Act in the 1960's/1970's, and the rise of mass killings. Before the Planned Parenthood shooter went on his rampage, he shot his neighbor's dog.
Pre-1960, that act may have landed him in a mental institution, or he at least would have been flagged so he could no longer own a gun. Not shown above is the 2010s, where mass killings are already double what they were in the Bush years of the 2000s (also linked below).

Additionally, another law is allowing the mentally ill to possess firearms: HIPAA or the Health Insurance and Portability Act of 1996. The privacy restrictions of that law make it nearly impossible, under federal law, for mental health providers to notify authorities of a patient who probably shouldn't own a gun. That law was passed by another Democrat President, Bill Clinton.

How Paul Ryan and Congress would effect changes to the original JFK Community Mental Health Act and the privacy provision of HIPAA are anyone's guess. But, I believe that keeping guns out of the hands of certain mentally ill patients would definitely save lives and would be a lot easier to implement than trying to take millions of guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that responsibly own them for sport or their own protection.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Following the San Bernadino terrorist attack, Barack Obama trotted out another false narrative that had nothing to do with that massacre or any other shooting by saying this: [they] "can't get on planes, but those same people who we don't allow to fly
could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm
and there's nothing that we can do to stop them...That's a law that needs to be changed."

OK, Republicans. Make Obama happy and pass a law that says you can't buy a gun if you're on the "No-fly List". It won't make one hill of beans difference to what happened in San Bernadino or any other mass shooting in this country. Syed Farook, the legal owner of guns used in the San Bernadino attack. made two trips to Saudi Arabia. He wasn't on the "No-Fly List". None of the killers in any of the other mass shootings were on the "list" either.

Also understand, that the Federal No-Fly List is both problematic and riddled with errors. For example, people who have names that are the same or similar to someone on that list will be erroneously denied the legal purchase of a weapon. Then, there are known errors and it is nearly impossible to get off the "list" once you're on it. One Stanford student spent 7 years in federal lawsuits trying because an FBI agent made a clerical error by checking off the wrong box!

So, leave it to this President to try to make an issue out of a list made up of 47,000 people (of which only 800 are Americans) as a means of stopping terrorist attacks instead of going after the source, which is: The radicalization taking place in too many Mosques throughout the world.

A Special Note: After writing this, the Drudge Report linked a story that said at least 72 Homeland Security employees were on the "No-Fly List". What about that, Mr. Obama? People that are supposed to be watching over our nation's security are on a terrorist watch list! By the way; That fact was announced by a Democrat by the name of Congressman Stephen Lynch. Also, one has to wonder; Did these people get on the "list" before they were hired or while working for Homeland Security?
Link: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/

Friday, December 4, 2015

Anyone -- upon seeing the video of Laquan McDonald being shot to death by a Chicago cop -- probably can't believe it took 13 months to charge Officer Jason Van Dyke with murder; especially during this time of heightened racially charged attitudes towards police shootings and brutality.

So, obviously, simply charging the cop with murder wasn't enough. Someone in a position of authority, had to pay. Thus, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy had to go. Not Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who appointed McCarthy just 3 years before Laquan's death. Not the Cook County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, who sat on the McDonald case for a year, and then hurriedly filed a murder charge against Van Dyke just minutes before the damning dash-cam video became public.

In my opinion, the firing of McCarthy is an attempt to shield Rahm Emanuel and Anita Alvarez from being unseated. McCarthy did what had to be done following the shooting. He placed Officer Van Dyke on desk duty until Alvarez decided whether or not to charge him. Rahm had to have known that a murder charge was eventually forthcoming, otherwise he wouldn't have authorized a $5 million payment to the McDonald family last March as compensation.
You have to ask yourself. Should a man who has been in the job for just 3 years be responsible for the actions of a 14-year veteran police officer? One who was trained and hired under the watch of the then-current Superintendent Terry Hillard. Also, over those 14 years, there had been 20 citizen complaints against Van Dyke and nothing was done about him. To me, this exposes a protective culture that exists within the department and among police officers, and no one chief of police is going to change that. The main driver of that culture is the police union which too often shields its members from being disciplined. This is obvious from the fact that Van Dyke was put on desk duty with pay; rather than laid off or even fired. He even remained on desk duty after the City paid out $5 million in compensation to the McDonald family. If that isn't enough to fire someone, what is?

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

In Chicago, while the "Black Lives Matter" crowds have been protesting over the cop shooting of Laquan McDonald, another life cut short went completely ignored. Tyshawn Lee was a nine year old boy who was executed by gunfire by a gang, as payback for his father's "sin" of being a member of a rival gang. The executioner was a felon who should have never owned a gun under Federal law and, for sure, under the even more rigid gun restrictions of Chicago. But, he and two others had guns that were probably purchased on the streets.

The sad fact is that there are all too many "Tyshawn Lee's" in Chicago and around the country. Many of these murders go unsolved because people in the community are afraid to talk; or, there were no witnesses due to the all too many drive-by shootings. Far more than the 33 unarmed blacks that have been shot and killed this year by police in the entire United States as of this writing (as reported by "The Counted").

Where is the outrage over the children killed almost weekly by these gangsters? Most of these are black lives. Again, not just in Chicago, but in every major city with high black populations. I think "Black Lives Matter" has its priorities upside down.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

It was just a month ago that a new study stated that the ice in Antarctica was melting so fast, the entire continent would be at risk by 2100; just 85 years from now. Now, NASA research scientists claim that the snow pack has been growing at a faster rate than usual, and outpacing any ice loss. So much so, that the enormity of growth is actually slowing the rise of sea levels throughout the world. Another NASA revelation is that the snow pack is the highest we've seen in 300 years; a couple of hundred years before the automobile was even invented.

So, what is it? Fast growing ice and snow or unheard of melting. Isn't the "settled"
science over global warming and climate change exciting?

On top of that, a team of European scientists, at an astronomy symposium, said that the lack of solar activity over the next few years will put the world into a mini ice age between 2030 to 2040. That's because there will be a reduction in solar activity by 60 percent in the ten years prior to that; a fact that has been seen since the 1600's when, the River Thames froze over completely. Icebreaker stock prices just went up!

Lastly, NASA's Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data shows that another month has gone by without moving the needle upwards on global warming. For the last 18 years and 9 months, the average trend in global temperatures has been flat.

But, to the 150+ world leaders who are meeting in the UN's Paris Climate Change summit (COP 21), these facts are immaterial. Instead, they will be negotiating massive redistribution of wealth and plans that will probably hurt all their people, especially the poor, with higher and higher energy prices. Additionally, those 50,000 delegates and hundreds of media types flying to Paris and back to wherever they came from, will cost the environment 300,000 "tons" of carbon dioxide.